Traffic Calming is a hot topic right now in Prospect Hill. Please use this forum to discuss any issues and concerns you may have.

The following comments originally posted as emails have been included here (with their original posting dates) as an archive of the discussion about traffic calming in the neighborhood. The discussion now continues with your comments....All are welcome to add to the conversation.

Hi all, I am sorry to report that due to a legal issue, the testing of Third Street's traffic calming has been suspended. The actual testing of the devices before balloting to install them seems to be in conflict with the current stated policy.

There are two choices: 1 ) Move ahead with balloting without any testing or data or 2) amend the policy at city level and then proceed with our testing.

Delay is unfortunate but I think that getting the right answer to our traffic issues is more important. Requiring the ballot voting to support something without being allowed to test it first is clearly counter intuitive and is obviously a flaw in the procedure which requires a remedy. I have requested Council's legal department to move forward on this issue immediately.

Chris Sturbaum

PS - My duties on Plan Commission will cause me to miss the Prospect Hill meeting on the 12th. Maybe a special meeting on traffic calming could be planned at this meeting so this issue can be fully discussed.

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 09:02:59 am

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:32:22

Hi Chris, What is the legal issue that is being violated? According to Justin, we are on Step 7 of the NTSP: Testing and Evaluation of Traffic Calming Device which states: "If the engineering Department and BPSC determine that testing is necessary, temporary traffic calming devices shall be installed for a period of at least one month. Following the test period, data will be collected to evaluate how well the test device has performed in terms of the previously defined problems and objectives. " Thanks! Karen

Reply

John and Pat McDowell

7/31/2010 09:04:28 am

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:43:00

Chris, and all -- Let's make the laws work for us! We like this device and want it to become permanent. It has already slowed down the screechers who dash through the lights to hit our stretch of Third at high speeds. Thanks, John and Pat McDowell

Reply

David Wierhake

7/31/2010 09:05:51 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:32:20

I'm w/ John and Pat. It's funny that 1st St. from East Sheridan to High St. has a half dozen speed bumps. One could do comparison traffic counts and find that our little gateway gets way more traffic. Eastside political influence or vocal neighbors w/influence?

Other note on speeding traffic: I sent a request to have a PARK AHEAD sign on Howe from approaching west traffic. Also reduce speed limit to 20mph. (I challenge anyone to drive 30mph from the top of the hill to Rogers. 30mph is the official speed limit on all north south legs of the 2-lane Walnuts and College as well as 3rd St. The entire city needs to review the reality of speed limits in neighborhoods. Also, painted pedestrian crossings at the alley (next to Julia Karr) and Maple St. Heck, put a 1st-style speed bump into the mix! David Wierhake

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 09:07:17 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:45:00

Part of the plan is to put speed bumps on Third from Maple to Walker with a stop sign at Walker. The city wants to try speed cushions which have grooves in them for the tires of emergency vehicles to go through, not slowing them down. The combination of islands at the front of the neighborhood with speed cushions at the end of the neighborhood should do the trick. David- thanks for working on reducing the speed around the park!

Karen Knight

Reply

Claire Arbogast

7/31/2010 09:08:28 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:45:06

I like slowing the traffic there but have been very worried about nicking the pickup truck that is frequently parked there. Speed bumps would do the job and avoid the sure-to-happen-sometime crunch. Claire Arbogast 108 S. Maple

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 09:09:57 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:47:21

The city has told us that the Prep School did not apply for some kind of school zoning and does not see the school as an official school so will not put cross walks in for them :( Karen

Reply

Susan Coleman

7/31/2010 09:10:53 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:50:38

Interesting. There are cross walks to other parks - such as Bryan Park on both the east and west sides, Cascades...I'm sure others. Susan

Reply

Merridee LaMantia

7/31/2010 09:12:07 am

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:01:04

The crosswalk can be argued for *any pedestrian* and there's no need to reference The Prep school now that we know what Karen has shared. Merridee LaMantia 820 W. Howe St.

Reply

Debra Wilkerson

7/31/2010 09:13:19 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:04:55

Yes, it was difficult and worrisome. Missing the pickup truck did seem like a challenge. The island needed to be smaller or that parking space eliminated. It crossed my mind that the truck might be part of the test and someone was going to eventually count the dents. I can't imagine trying to do this maneuver when there is ice and snow on the roads. Not kidding, Debra 336 S. Maple

Reply

Robert Hoole

7/31/2010 09:14:20 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:24:57

I like the idea of the island being there but the positioning and design of that one just didn't seem right. Several times I was a passenger in a large pickup truck turning onto 3rd from the north. The first time it was a surprise and we nearly took out a parked car. Subsequent times it was difficult and needlessly hazardous with the adjacent parking. I'd like to see a redesigned island and also speed bumps. Sure, there is a procedure to follow but if there is enough concerted and consistent bitching from the neighborhood we could get those speed bumps. Procedures are circumvented all the time. Robert

Reply

David Wierhake

7/31/2010 09:15:37 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:27:09

Really, how many times have you seen ER vehicles race down this leg of Third St. Bureaucratic mindset at its best! Is anyone speaking sense here? Mr. Councilman, will you please make a firm statement in support of both island AND speed bumps. So much hype on boycotting Arizona. Let's put some energy into local issues where it really counts. David Wierhake

Reply

Karen Garinger

7/31/2010 09:17:22 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:28:54

I agree with Robert's description of the island: "needlessly hazardous with the adjacent parking." Could one more parking spot have been eliminated during the test period?

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 09:19:09 am

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:37:14

I wonder if the fire trucks from the fire last night at the Paris Dunning house would have been able to make it past the island... http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2010/07/09/news.qp-1665675.sto The city had to redesign the temporary island to allow the firetrucks to get through. The island was originally slated to be larger but due to the limbs of the tree closest to the island over hanging the road, the island was made smaller to allow for fire truck passage.

I think two parking spaces were lost with the island. Karen

Reply

Leah Shopkow

7/31/2010 09:21:33 am

Jul 9, 1:06 pm

I heartily agree with the purpose of traffic calming, but the existing island channeled people going west into driving down the center of the street. The day I met an SUV driving down the center of the street was not one of the better ones. And it doesn't seem to slow people down for long (there's the same issue with the chicanes at the end of third street, which some people take as a slalom challenge. They're still not stopping at the stop sign at third and Jackson. I suspect that a sleeping policeman would be more helpful. If it were put about a third of the way in, it might slow people down for the whole block. And in combination with more further down third street, it might encourage people to take Kirkwood or 2nd street west. Leah

Reply

Holly Silvers

7/31/2010 10:11:56 am

Jul 9, 1:23 pm

Hi neighbors, Many of us have been arguing for speed bumps for years-- at least as far back as when the city installed the bump-outs that we were forced to accept in a "this or nothing" arrangement. This onversation has become an exercise in banging one's head into a wall. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over with no results except for more hideous yellow paint and yet more signage. The aesthetics of west end of Third Street have been destroyed by the number of signs, the yellow paint, and the bump-outs that contain nothing but dried up mulch and trash (and black marks from the tires of the cars that hit them). As a non-driver, the swerving of drivers as they navigate the bump-outs is always a joy to experience when trying to walk down Third Street. Can we now stop with encouraging drivers to swerve and concentrate on getting them to slow down? How hard is it to understand that four or five speed bumps could solve the problem on Third Street? Heck, put them on Fourth and on Howe as well! I remember when the speed bumps on East First were installed and I don't recall that neighborhood being inundated with paint, signs, and other experiments for years and years before their installation. Why has the city made Prospect Hill jump through so many hoops and insisted on wasting money on the current ineffective methods instead of just installing the speed bumps? Speed bumps work, they are relatively cheap and aesthetically innocuous compared to the mess the city has made of the west end of Third Street and the overall failure to "calm" the traffic cutting through our neighborhood. Holly Silvers

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 10:14:34 am

Jul 9, 1:24 pm

What is a sleeping policeman? Sounds like a good idea! Karen

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 10:16:33 am

Jul 9, 1:35 pm

I totally agree! Karen

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

7/31/2010 10:23:29 am

Jul 9, 1:44 pm

Hi all, I do support both solutions and have been working to achieve same. I think a redesign is a good idea on the 3rd and Rogers island but the concept is a good one. Chris

Our neighborhood's next step could be further speed limit reductions to 25 MPH and crosswalks on Howe are also a good idea. Future neighborhood grants can be directed to the park which is where the new pavilion came from.

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

7/31/2010 10:25:36 am

Jul 9, 1:46 pm

That test (for fire trucks) is always performed before a permanent island is installed. It is absolutely mandatory and is always done. I agree that refinement of design is in order for the island. Chris

Reply

Glenda Murray

7/31/2010 10:27:26 am

Jul 9, 1:55 pm

I look forward to a meeting when we can get together and talk about these ideas. I must say that I was glad the barrier was gone this morning at 2:20 when the fire trucks and police cars started arriving and they could just barrel down the street, which I know we don’t want most of the time—but I want to remind us that we do want emergency vehicles to be able to access our neighborhood quickly when they need to. I want to change the topic slightly and commend the Fire Department and Police Department for their work in saving the Paris Dunning House this morning. I talked to Jawn Bauer at lunch time, and he also said they were awesome. At one point there were 3 fire trucks in the 500 block of West Third, one on Fairview right in front (the hydrant is at our corner, next to one of the two stop signs at Third and Jackson), one in the 600 block of W 3rd, plus two other fire vehicles and 3-5 police cars. Some of those folks left as the hours wore on, but the last three fire trucks didn’t leave until 6:30 this morning, when they were sure the fire and hot spots were out. Another different topic—The last of the old Fairview School is being torn down today. There is a committee working on fundraising for the new Artful Learning curriculum and training. If anyone is interested in helping or in getting more info, please let me know, and I will be happy to talk with you about it. We will be updating the listserv regularly. Among our fundraising ideas are selling bricks from the old school (hopefully the chimney itself), some musical presentations, and lots of other ideas we are still exploring. We will launch this fall, after the campaign for the extracurricular activities (ECAs) is accomplished. Glenda Murray 525 West Third

Reply

Joshua Gardner

7/31/2010 10:30:07 am

Jul 9, 2:02 pm

Hi, Having read this discussion; it seems concerned neighbors might want a "Speed table” not a “speed bump.” When acting as a pedestrian crossing, the Speed table because a "raised-crosswalk." I believe a speed table can be engineered to be compliant with emergency vehicles requirements. Here is some reading material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_table http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/11/crosswalks_of_t.html Fun Video: http://www.streetfilms.org/raised-crosswalk/ "Raised crosswalks are Speed Tables outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage to channelize pedestrian crossings, providing pedestrians with a level street crossing. Also, by raising the level of the crossing, pedestrians are more visible to approaching motorists." Joshua Gardner South Fairview

Reply

Leah Shopkow

7/31/2010 10:33:20 am

Jul 9, 2:17 pm

Thanks, Joshua. But what about speed cushions? (I jumped from a link in one of the articles you provided). If what I've read is correct, they would slow down cars significantly, but not emergency vehicles. Leah

Reply

Ron Keithe

7/31/2010 10:36:45 am

Jul 9

Here's an odd thought. Maybe we should ask the people ripping through our 'hood at rush hour what it would take for them to SLOW DOWN while they move through our streets on their way across town. Keep in mind these folks have an "escape" mentality until they reach their own realm & family west of here. Speed bumps may be the only way, but perhaps also some kind of graceful arch over Third to clearly announce they're moving into OUR likewise cherished neighborhood. I dunno. But I agree with David W. - any SANE driver would feel like they're speeding above 20-25 miles per hour. Ron Keithe 336 S. Maple St.

Reply

Holly Silvers

7/31/2010 10:39:06 am

Jul 9, 2:57 pm

It's not an odd thought at all, and we discussed this approach last summer. The consensus then was that those of us who have tried the civilized approach have been told to f-off, we've been flipped off, swerved at, and had cups and plastic bottles of soda thrown at us-- often in front of our own houses. Last week, an ice cream truck trundled down Third Street, and when it stopped for people wanting to buy ice cream, the cars behind it began honking. These people couldn't care less that they're in our neighborhood.

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 10:41:29 am

Jul 9, 3:08 pm

Chris suggested speed tables but the city was not warm on the idea. There were some problems with the pedestrian walkway part of the idea. We discussed a combination of speed cushions and raised crosswalks but they would not do it. They are open to the speed cushions which allow emergency vehicles to drive through at high speeds. What do people think about getting rid of the alternate parking and chicanes if we get speed cushions? It would reduce the visual pollution near the cemetery. Karen

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 10:43:46 am

Jul 9, 3:30 pm

We are planning to have a special meeting on Monday August 2 at 6:30 pm at the Green Bean to discuss these traffic issues. We are hoping to get Justin, the city engineer who is working on this problem, to attend. Please come and bring your great ideas. The more of us that turn out, the more the city sees that we are serious about fixing this problem. Once the city has a plan, it gets voted on by residents in Prospect Hill. If half the residents agree with the plan, it goes in front of the City Council. It will be important for everyone to show up to impress on the Council that traffic is a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

Thanks for all the great ideas that have been posted! Karen

Reply

Jeff Mease

7/31/2010 10:45:00 am

Jul 9, 3:33 pm

I'll throw in my 2 cents: Seems to me that Bloomington has some of the butt-ugliest and counterproductive traffic calming schemes I've seen anywhere. As a driver, the slalom course on West third gets MY adrenaline going, and I am not an aggressive driver. 4 way stop signs and speed bumps are so effective and so inexpensive, why don't use them more? Best, Jeff Mease

Reply

Teresa Miller

7/31/2010 10:46:32 am

Jul 9, 3:34 pm

I guess I must jump in the fray as I live on Third St. near Rogers. I am all for getting rid of the chicanes and signs by the cemetery. They are an eyesore and not effective at slowing the traffic. I walk my dog down that stretch frequently and am always concerned that a fast moving vehicle will take me out while negotiating the curves in daredevil fashion. The traffic median that was recently removed did seem to slow traffic, but I recognize the difficulty of making a turn onto Third St. West if you are heading South on Rogers. It did serve to flag the beginning of a neighborhood. Perhaps a smaller unit would work but one still planted with flowers. I would hate to see a mass of concrete as marking the entrance to our neighborhood. Personally I think traffic bumps (sleeping policeman) or what ever they are called work the best. I would be concerned about rumble strips as a solution because of the noise pollution issue for neighbors living near them. -Teresa Miller

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 10:48:57 am

Jul 9, 3:43 pm

As a business owner, your two cents are probably worth four cents :) The city does not see stop signs as a traffic calming devices. In 2001, we tried to get a stop sign at Walker and Third. We ended up getting the chicanes. The city has no problem with putting speed bumps on the East side where the money lives. Karen

Reply

Christie Wahlert

7/31/2010 10:50:35 am

Jul 9, 3:44 pm I understand this issue is important to quite a few of you. However, PLEASE, for the sake of all of our inboxes, either take this into a different email thread with those who have responded with their interest or wait until the upcoming meeting that was just announced at Green Bean Café to discuss this issue. There are a LOT of folks on this listserv, and I don't think we all need to be involved in email after email brainstorming solutions. Thank you! In related news, does anyone know how to set this so you only receive a daily digest of emails from the list? If so, email me directly! Christie P.S. And no, the irony of me sending yet another email to everyone on the list is not lost on me. :) Christie Wahlert

Reply

Debora Frazier

7/31/2010 10:54:40 am

Jul 9, 3:48 pm

I am very glad that we did not lose the Paris Dunning House today and appreciate the response of our Fire and Police Departments. Is it true a jogger called in the report? In respect to the island on 3rd. I too wondered if the truck was not part of the test and weather I would "pass" it trying to squeeze by. I am continually dealing with large trucks barreling around the corner of Smith and Buckner and people driving too fast -however I believe the islands have created more stress and destruction than not. I cross third street several times every day walking my dog. That journey now includes navigating betwixt and between the islands collecting trash , weeds, hubcaps, skid marks with cars still racing past the steps to Rose Hill Cemetery. I desire traffic calming and creating a walkable, way-finding community. I believe we can do that. We have many fine suggestions and all want a safe and secure neighborhood. Debora Frazier 347 Buckner

Reply

Joe LaMantia

7/31/2010 10:55:49 am

Jul 9, 4:34 pm

Hi All, If we go the speed bump way, I suggest we be more creative about using some design with color and texture...this will surely create some smiles as you slow down and bump. Joe

Reply

Jill Bird

7/31/2010 10:56:46 am

Jul 9, 5:05 pm

The island was not very bicycle friendly, so I'm happy it's gone. Jill Bird

Reply

John and Pat McDowell

7/31/2010 10:57:53 am

Jul 9, 11:38 pm Hey Everybody -- This is a really stimulating debate! I just want to add one more detail. Currently, every week day, a group of charming little kids gets escorted across Rogers, up Third, across Third to Jackson, en route to Trades Park. We fear for the well-being of these tots if the free-wheelers cruising west on Third are not contained. John and Pat

Reply

Susan Park

7/31/2010 11:00:41 am

Jul 10, 7:40 am

Everyone, Let us not forget the most important thing here is we live on a dangerous street. I walk to and from work and as I walk on 3rd Street inconsiderate drivers fly down this street.

There is no green space between the sidewalk and street. Cars whiz by and it's frightening. The over-sized pickups scare me to death as they cut through to the west side.

Twice now Tara Vickers has had drivers yell at her to "shut your fucking car door" while she tries to carry in groceries.

Holly Silvers is right when she talks about things being thrown at us, we've been given the finger by countless drivers when we yell for them to slow down, and they always throw the F-bomb at us.

When Harry Murphy died several months ago and they were trying to get his body in the morgue truck, poor Sue had to experience a driver sitting on the street honking her horn and yelling at them to move that truck. Can you imagine??

This week when Kittles delivered my new sofa a third man walked in my living room who I thought was with Kittles. Are you ready for this one, folks?

He looked at the Kittles gentlemen and asked "How long are you going to be parked on the street?" They answered five or ten minutes. He said "Well, ok, I'll just turn around go down another way." This man, this stranger who was in his 60s, was bold enough to walk into my home, my living room, because he wanted to get to the west side!

We have been telling Sturbaum and Wycoff at the the city that these drivers are getting bolder and bolder, more rude and more dangerous as the city drags its feet on helping us. The bottom line is this: we have a very dangerous situation here and we are being ignored, given the "run-around" and the city is hoping we just go away. It's obvious here that we are not giving up. We can't, it's too dangerous.

The test island only helped for a short block while our problem is the entire W. 3rd Street. Since this process is dragging on and on and on, how did the stupid chicanes get in so quickly? We all know what needs to be done: speed cushions and police monitoring. That's it, that's all. Or would the city prefer that someone gets killed first? The only thing wrong with common sense is it's not common. Susan Park

Reply

Rachel Guglielmo

7/31/2010 11:02:08 am

Jul 10, 11:50 am

Hello everyone, I would like to put in (another) plea that this should be considered and presented as a neighborhood-wide problem, requiring a neighborhood-wide solution.

Several people have already pointed out that speed limits are too high throughout Prospect Hill and that crosswalks and speed bumps are needed in multiple locations rather than just on 3rd street (where they are definitely needed) -- 4th street should be added to the list. Although traffic is not as heavy on 4th as on 3rd, speeds are much too high and drivers much too careless for an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, including young children. We should have a lower speed limit, speed bumps, and crosswalks (particularly at 4th and Rogers). Rachel Guglielmo 620 W. 4th St.

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 11:03:19 am

Jul 10, 2:08 pm

We have talked about the need for traffic calming on 4th street at the PHNA meetings. To get speed bumps, 4th street needs to apply for the NTSP. The NTSP(Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program) application can be picked up at the Engineering department in Showers Plaza. The application asks for a description of the problem and signatures supporting that there is a problem from at least 51% of the residents on 4th street. Then a city council member needs to sponsor the project.

If anyone feels moved to start this processes, I will help you navigate through the system. Karen Knight

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

7/31/2010 11:05:28 am

Jul 10, 3:09 pm

Karen and all, We really need to take this one step at a time.

We are in the middle of the process of working on 3rd Street which has the biggest traffic problem at the moment. Starting other projects before getting this one resolved is not the best way to succeed.

Changing speed limits is another process and we will want to discuss this at the neighborhood level.

There has been support for this idea in the past from the city council.

We need to resolve our plans at the neighborhood level and then work to bring them about. Chris Sturbaum

Reply

Gracia Valliant

7/31/2010 11:40:55 am

Jul 11, 4:04 pm

While I agree that slowing traffic is necessary, I agree with Jeff on this. I bent a wheel on 3rd Street one icy day when I slid into one of the calming devices. It would be great to come up with something less difficult to maneuver. Gracia Valliant

Reply

Cynthia Bretheim

7/31/2010 11:41:40 am

Jul 11, 9:07 pm

I like speed bumps and 4-way stops too. The simple things are often the most effective. Cynthia

Reply

Jill Bird

7/31/2010 11:43:03 am

Jul 11, 10:25 pm

The lane was too narrow for a bike and car at the same time.

When riding S on Rogers, it was nearly impossible to safely turn right on red on to third. Without the island, it was safe to do so because a fast westbound car could pass a bike, since it is rare to have a eastbound and westbound car at the same time. The hill makes it difficult to stop at the light (southbound on Rogers) and turn right on 3rd. And cars must wait for a bike (struggling with the hill) to clear the island before they may proceed. West on 3rd, it's the same problem. Cars must wait for a bike or try to pass quickly. Both scenarios can lead to an accident.

I never felt safe on my bike when the island was in place. Jill Bird

Reply

Susan Park

7/31/2010 11:45:13 am

To All,

Everyone seems to be comfortable expounding on this site and I am grateful for that, but we need to do more.

We need to show our frustration by our physical presence at the meetings. The only way Engineering or City Council will take us seriously to listen to what we have to say. They have to see us!

Reading this e-mails at those meetings will have little effect but if we if show up they will "get" how seriously dangerous this situation is.

Thx. Susan Park

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 11:47:15 am

Jul 12, 9:36 am

Riding a bike on Third street seems very dangerous now and we are hoping that our traffic calming efforts make it more bike and pedestrian friendly! Thanks for the helpful information.

Reply

Doug Wissing

7/31/2010 11:51:03 am

Jul 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Dear Neighbors--

The west 3rd St. traffic-diversion supporter who wrote that "Prospect Hill will vote" on the west 3rd St. traffic-diversion ballot is being misleading. By the flawed process of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NSTP), only those residents who live along west 3rd—those who stand to benefit by this traffic-diversion project that pushes traffic elsewhere in the neighborhood—will be allowed to vote on this ballot.

The rest of Project Hill that will be negatively impacted by the increased traffic is barred from voting. I live a hundred feet or so from west 3rd and can't vote. Bet most of you can't either. Fourth St., Howe, Madison, Smith, Prospect, the rest of Prospect Hill--no vote. This is gerrymandering of a most undemocratic--and unneighborly--type.

We all share an interest in traffic moving along our residential streets at an appropriate speed--25 mph for the most part; 20 mph in zones such as schools, parks and Wonderlab. But many neighbors are concerned that this proposed west 3rd St. traffic-diversion bumper-car scheme will just push traffic to other Prospect Hill residential streets. One only needs to talk to the residents along west 7th who saw a dramatic increase in traffic after the west 6th St. traffic islands were installed to know this is a valid concern. Rather than this special-interest west 3rd St. traffic-diversion scheme, we need a comprehensive traffic-calming plan for ALL of Prospect Hill that will serve the entire neighborhood.

I have the highest regard for Council member Sturbaum, who does a yeoman's job for his constituents, including championing the interests of the west 3rd St. residents who stand to benefit by the proposed traffic-diversion project. But this is bad plan concocted out of a flawed ordinance. It has almost caused a neighborhood disaster. Many neighbors are saying if City officials hadn't ordered the illegal traffic-diversion island at 3rd & Rogers removed the day before the Parris Dunning House burned, firetrucks couldn't have negotiated the labyrinth. So let us urge Council member Sturbaum to lobby for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan that takes into account the needs, rights and safety of the entire Prospect Hill neighborhood.

Please add your voice to those calling for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan, and a reform of the flawed Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program that disenfranchises most of the neighborhood.Email addresses are below.

Doug Wissing213 S. Jackson St.

Reply

Susan Park

7/31/2010 11:52:39 am

Jul 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Mr. Wissing,Have you attended any of the many neighborhood meetings where this has been discussed over and over and over?We are indeed trying to take care of the entire neighborhood.If you have read the data then you are well aware of how serious the situation is on W. 3rd.The system is indeed flawed but not in our favor.Susan Park

Reply

Karen Knight

7/31/2010 11:54:13 am

Jul 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Hi Neighbors,

At the last PHNA meeting, a new committee was created to work on traffic calming through out the neighborhood. The plan of this committee is to work with the city to get a comprehensive traffic calming effort in Prospect Hill.

If you would like to work with your neighbors on traffic calming, please attend the next PHNA meeting on Monday August 2nd at 6:30 at the Green Bean. This meeting will be devoted to traffic calming.

Hope to see you there!

Karen

Reply

Rachel Guglielmo & Timothy Waters

7/31/2010 11:56:28 am

July 25, 2010 11:20 PM

Dear all,

We support a comprehensive traffic calming plan for the Prospect Hill neighborhood, and are dismayed by rumors that a "3rd Street plan" is moving forward, without due consideration having been given to concerns about the impact this plan could have on the rest of the neighborhood that have been raised repeatedly, in different forums (including most recently at the Neighborhood Council meeting on July 12th), by Prospect Hill residents.

We urge you to provide comprehensive information about the present plan to all residents of Prospect Hill, and to consider delaying further action until sufficient opportunity has been given for people throughout the neighborhood to consider and respond to it.

Thank you for your consideration,

Rachel Guglielmo & Timothy Waters4th street residents

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

7/31/2010 11:58:28 am

Jul 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Hi Rachel and Neighbors,

I think a little background is in order. The neighbors on West 3rd Street have been following the city's process for traffic calming for nearly two years now. Neighborhood meetings have gone over the options and there have been meetings with the city officials. The voting (balloting) is limited by ordinance to the people on the street who are directly effected by the changes and who suffer most directly from the traffic issues as well. These are the city's rules that neighbors have been faithfully following. The city council has to approve the traffic calming action as the final oversight process.

Regarding planning, it is a good idea to work on a neighborhood-wide basis. The speed limit is one thing we can work on together and there are stop signs we can add to 4th Street as we did for Howe Street. Future traffic calming is another option on a street by street basis.

However, I would really hope that no-one wishes to use this planning process to undo the work of 3rd Street traffic calming. That would be a disappointing direction for a neighborhood like ours to take.

The problems on 3rd Street are real and neighbors of ours are talking about leaving this neighborhood if things don't improve. I am truly disturbed to hear this from people who moved here with such high hopes. Unlike 4th and Howe, this street has a four lane road aimed right at it with a timed stop light. If we do nothing, future development of apartments to the west will only make this situation worse. I hope we don't add insult to injury by opposing the only remedy for their distress.

Chris Sturbaum

Reply

Doug Wissing

7/31/2010 12:05:22 pm

Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Dear Neighbors--

In response to recent postings on both the west 3rd St. traffic-diversion plan and the call for a comprehensive neighborhood traffic-calming plan, I would like to make the following points:

--The west 3rd St. traffic-diversion project has NOT followed the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP), which is the part of the code that covers this process:

Firstly, because the west 3rd St. scheme is a traffic-diversion project, not a traffic-calming project. Traffic-diversion is clearly prohibited in the NTSP, because it just pushes traffic elsewhere in the adjacent neighborhood. There is ample evidence the west 3rd special-interest group is attempting to manipulate the NTSP process to divert traffic volume to other neighborhood streets.

Secondly, as I have written before, we all share the need to have traffic move through our residential streets at an appropriate speed:25 MPH for the most part; 20 MPH in specific zones such as schools,parks and Wonderlab.

But it is important to recognize that the earlier west 3rd St. chicane project has dramatically calmed the traffic on the stretch of west 3rd where many of the proponents of the special-interest plan live, as both City Engineer Justin Wycoff and Public Works Director SusanJohnson have repeatedly evidenced. Speed studies indicate the averagespeed in some blocks on 3rd St. west of Jackson are 19 miles per hour. That's right: 19 mph.

Again, we all want traffic moving through all of Prospect Hill at the appropriate speeds, but this takes a comprehensive neighborhood plan, not this flawed special-interest 3rd St. plan. A comprehensive neighborhood plan will address ALL the areas needing further traffic calming.

Thirdly, the west 3rd St. project has not followed the NTSP because the illegal temporary traffic-diversion island was installed in clear violation of the NTSP policy. As many Prospect Hill folks have noted, the ill-considered 3rd and Rogers traffic-blocking island that the City staff was pressured into installing was a grave danger. Many feel if City officials had removed the island, it could have caused a disaster with the Parris Dunning House fire, as fire trucks couldn't have negotiated the island labyrinth.

--In further reference to the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program:City officials are now painfully aware the NTSP is a flawed policy, which needs revision so special-interest groups cannot manipulate city resources to the detriment of the larger neighborhood and community. Chief among the needed corrections is the imperative to enfranchise ALL of the affected streets, not just allow the residents who stand tobenefit to vote on the measures. Though I live half a block from west 3rd, I can't vote on the ballot—bet you can't either.

--On a philosophic note, I am concerned to see attempts to dismiss the legitimate concerns voiced by Prospect Hill residents. As a Prospect Hill resident going back almost 20 years now, I think of ALL Prospect Hill residents as neighbors and citizens. This attempt to dismiss valid dissenting viewpoints resonates with the insider, special-interest culture that dominates the Prospect Hill NeighborhoodAssociation—one resident termed it "a little Tammany Hall." Many neighbors have told me that they have stopped participating in the PHNA because of this. From my perspective, the Prospect Hill neighborhood should be a welcoming, inclusive place, which celebrates diverse opinions, and searches for consensus decisions that benefits the entire neighborhood.

Let us all join together for a comprehensive Prospect Hilltraffic-calming plan, which values all of us as citizens and neighbors.

Respectfully,

Doug Wissing213 S. Jackson St.

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

7/31/2010 12:07:52 pm

Jul 30, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Neighbors and colleagues,

As I have said before, there are always people who oppose traffic calming and reasonable people can disagree. I am sorry that this disagreement is taking place but sometimes that is an inevitable part of our democratic process.As the representative of this district, I have by code been part of this process from the beginning. The traffic calming ordinance (NTSP) also encourages petitioners to work through their neighborhood association which has been taking place for going on two years now.

Here are a few additional facts:

*There are still cars driving over the speed limit on a street with no barriers between sidewalk and street. The black marks on the islands show that excessive speed is still occurring.( I have never come close to hitting any of the islands since their installation.)

*The first objective in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) is to" 1 ) Improve neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods." and the first description of "livability" is "The ability of residents to feel safe and secure in their neighborhood."

* Residents feel unsafe in their neighborhood on a street categorized as a local street.

* The technical violation charge (illegal procedure) came from the city gathering data before the balloting process. While this would have made for a more informed decision, it was technically out of order: ( Step 7 before Step 6.)

* The charge of "illegal traffic diversion" comes from the ordinance which states that the increase in traffic on parallel streets can not exceed 150 additional cars. The statement that the traffic calming devices are in reality "traffic diversion devices" is simply rhetoric. Ironically, the testing which was stopped on demand had the purpose of evaluating the effect of various traffic calming actions on adjacent streets. Fortunately, this testing would still take place after the balloting and modifications would still be made as needed. For instance, it is illegal to impact 4th or Howe Street by more than 150 vehicles per day and this would be tested.

* The charge that the temporary test device would have kept the fire trucks from saving the Paris Dunning house is simply not true and no permanent device is ever installed without full review and approval by fire and safety vehicles.

* The NTSP is designed to address one street at a time but it does not ignoresurrounding streets and in fact, tests are made to affirm that the adjacent streets are not overly impacted.

* The balloting process has been arrived at through experience. 51% of all eligible households on the street in question must support the remedy with one vote per household. Any non-vote is a no vote.

I look forward to an open discussion at the neighborhood meeting on Monday.This has never been an attempt to pit one street against another. The neighbors on 3rd Street really are experiencing a negative impact and they are asking for help.

Chris Sturbaum

Reply

Doug Wissing

8/2/2010 12:41:33 am

Ms. Park,

Thanks for your invitation to visit with you on your west 3rd front porch. Be great to meet with you and learn more about your views on the west 3rd traffic situation and work with you on a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan.

I left a message trying to schedule a meeting on your voice mail yesterday, but haven't heard back from you yet. You can call the number I left on the voice mail or you can email me atdouglaswissing@gmail.com.

Best,

Doug Wissing

Reply

Chris Sturbaum

8/2/2010 01:00:56 am

Hi Prospect Hill Neighbors,

We should be able to get definitive answers about both the process and the possibilities for traffic calming at the Prospect Hill meeting Monday at 6:30 at the Green Bean with Justin Wycoff. My perspective is that there are clear political reasons to try to finish the 3rd Street project now. If we try to start all over we risk losing funding to other neighborhoods.

This can also mean years more of waiting if we stop the current process and then wait for a revision of the traffic ordinance. Funds are getting harder to come by each year and we are in line for help this coming year.

I suggest that the best thing to do is to make sure that 3rd Street calming fits into a larger neighborhood vision. The city can't afford to fund neighborhood wide projects, all at the same time, which is one of the reasons why considering these issues one street at a time has become the norm: Literally one project, one year at a time, is how this works, due to the available amount of funding for traffic calming.

I look forward to meeting and talking about all this with all of you at the Prospect Hill meeting on the 2nd. This is the strength of our neighborhood association: That we can work out our issues at this level and then take them to the city for resolution.

The neighborhood association hasn't been ignoring our neighborhood wide traffic situation. Over the years the association has supported stop signs on Howe and Madison, advocated for 2nd and West Kirkwood and worked on 3rd Street issues from it's inception. The work on neighborhood issues of speed limits and additional traffic calming will continue. The formation of a committee for this planning is a very positive step. I just believe that traffic calming still needs to happen one street at a time due to the reality of the funding process. Glad you are all involved! See you on the 2nd.

Chris Sturbaum

Reply

Doug Wissing

8/2/2010 02:44:17 am

Dear Neighbors,

It's great to see the growing consensus both among Prospect Hill residents and City officials for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan. Rather than the flawed west 3rd St. traffic-diversion plan that would have dumped traffic on adjacent streets, the comprehensive plan will strategically address ALL of the neighborhood needs for appropriate traffic speeds.

To respectfully respond to recent Discussion Board messages:

--It appears there are a few west 3rd St. residents who are very sensitive to vehicular traffic. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is appropriate to point out that Prospect Hill is an urban neighborhood, with public streets that pass through it. Council member Sturbaum has indicated "neighbors of ours are talking about leaving this neighborhood if things don't improve. I am truly disturbed to hear this from people who moved here with such high hopes." Did these neighbors fail to note 3rd St was a public street with through traffic before they purchased their home(s)? Were these neighbors misled by realtors or remodelers, who over-promised? Prospect Hill is a dense urban neighborhood with public streets. It is not an exclusive gated community with private roads.

There seems to be a consistent subtext in the west 3rd St. campaign that non-neighborhood vehicles should not be allowed on this city street--what one proponent likes to possessively term "our street." I don't agree with this attitude. We live alongside public streets that we share with our fellow citizens. I sure don't want to need a passport to drive on the East Side or in Owen County, and don't think residents from those areas should be harrassed if they want to drive through Prospect Hill—as they have been.

Indeed, the aggressive tactics taken by some west 3rd St. traffic-diversion proponents are giving Prospect Hill a bad name. Stories of west 3rd St. residents howling at passing motorists—including one City staffer who was driving at a moderate speed down west 3rd with his family—are now part of the Bloomington urban lore. A Fed-Ex driver says she was accosted by a west 3rd St. resident, who grabbed onto the side of the truck, refusing to get off until the driver revealed her itinerary—which she couldn't do by Fed-Ex policy. This is not the open, inclusive Prospect Hill I know.

--Regarding the west 3rd St. traffic-diversion scheme: the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program clearly states, "Traffic safety projects on neighborhood collector streets shall not divert traffic off the project street through the use of traffic diversion devices." There is ample evidence the west 3rd St. proponents are trying to divert traffic off of west 3rd. In his recent posting, council member Sturbaum was remarkably sanguine about a diversion of as many as 150 cars a day from 3rd St. onto 4th and Howe streets.

The temporary 3rd and Rogers traffic-diversion island was illegally installed, in clear violation of the NTSP that requires a ballot prior to the installation of temporary traffic-diversion structures. Many City officials now recognize the NTSP balloting process is un-democratic and un-neighborly: Only residents who benefit from the project are permitted to vote; those who are negatively impacted are disenfranchised. The City admininstration is now in the process of reforming the NTSP to make it a better law by empowering the entire neighborhood, not just a special-interest group.

Further, the island was a grave risk. We are very fortunate City officials recognized the danger and removed it the day before the Parris Dunning fire. Council member Sturbaum's assertion that the island was not a dangerous impediment to fire trucks is out of step with the consensus view in both Prospect Hill and City Hall. I have heard City officials say more than once that they felt they "dodged a bullet" by yanking the ill-fated island out just prior to the fire. Following the near-miss of the fire, many PH neighbors echoed the same view. The island could have caused a disaster.

--Council member Sturbaum continues to insist there is a "problem" on west 3rd, citing street-side sidewalks and black marks on curbs. To state the obvious, there are many parts of this community, including streets in Prospect Hill and in other parts of council member Sturbaum's district, which have NO sidewalks. Even the "rich Eastside," as some 3rd St. proponents term it, has extensive areas without sidewalks. Street-side sidewalks are certainly not unique to west 3rd St. And many of those other streets with street-side sidewalks have average speeds far higher than the 19 mph averages of chicane-d west 3rd.

As to the "black marks" on the curbs: the chicanes that the west 3rd St. residents earlier demanded make it a writhing snake of a street. Small wonder drivers occassionally hit the curbs, even driving at the low speeds the impediments require. There is no evidence these "black ma

Reply

Doug Wissing

8/2/2010 02:46:50 am

Continued...

As to the "black marks" on the curbs: the chicanes that the west 3rd St. residents earlier demanded make it a writhing snake of a street. Small wonder drivers occassionally hit the curbs, even driving at the low speeds the impediments require. There is no evidence these "black marks" are caused by excessive speeds. These references to street-side sidewalks and black marks are specious arguments that reflect an obsession with west 3rd St. traffic diversion that is to the detriment of the neighborhood, the district and the larger community.

Let us join together for a comprehensive Prospect Hill traffic-calming plan, which values all of us as citizens and neighbors.

Respectfully,

Doug Wissing213 S. Jackson St.

Reply

Chris Alford

8/2/2010 07:41:20 am

Here is an idea. It might take some time to work, but how about renaming that section of 3rd street? if people don't know there is a 3rd street there, they won't use it. Just a thought. C. Alford.

Reply

Rachel Guglielmo & Tim Waters

8/2/2010 07:44:22 am

July 28, 2010

Dear Chris and Neighbors,

Thank you for your note. We very much appreciate hearing your views. We are entirely in favor of following the correct process, as we believe everyone in the neighborhood is. As you note, part of that process is that the City Council needs to vote on this; each councilperson’s vote should reflect the considerations of the whole neighborhood and city. We were at the 12 July meeting, and heard a range of views -- from neighbors on 3rd, 4th, Howe, Jackson and other streets -- all in favor of 3rd Street’s plan as part of a comprehensive neighborhood plan. Voicing concerns, including our concern that no plan be finally voted on that is not neighborhood-wide and neighborhood-approved, is part of that process too.

It is therefore not helpful to frame such concerns as improper opposition to an ongoing process or a proposal to ‘undo’ a plan for traffic calming on 3rd Street -- it is, on the contrary, a concern for process that includes the whole neighborhood. For example, you mention that there is a requirement that only the affected street participate in the ballot. To us, this just demonstrates the problem of having proceeded on a non-neighborhood basis. A comprehensive neighborhood plan could either have been put to a neighborhood ballot or -- if for some technical reason that is not possible -- to parallel street-by-street ballots. As it is, a process has been advanced that makes it impossible for neighbors to voice their views effectively or be assured of full information about the process.

So we would welcome more background information -- part of the problem, frankly has been that clear and authoritative information about the process has been in short supply. You mention that the 3rd Street process has been ongoing for some time; this is true, but so have attempts to ensure that this is a comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. We recall an extensive discussion on the group listserv last year, during which many voices called for attention to traffic-calming throughout Prospect Hill; we, for example, specifically raised the issue of including 4th st. traffic calming as part of a comprehensive plan last October.

So, we are in favor of a neighborhood plan that includes the 3rd Street project, just as we are in favor of a process that is open and communicative. In that spirit, we would like to know:

What is the current status of proposals for 3rd Street? What are the next steps, including opportunities for neighbors to be heard?How do current plans for 3rd Street take into account the concerns of the whole neighborhood, including risks of traffic diversion? What specific opportunities would neighbors on other streets have to comment on, support or object to a 3rd Street-only plan?Is there a single location where the current status, remaining steps and timeline, and opportunities to be heard regarding plans for 3rd Street is currently listed? Perhaps there is, but it is evident that many actively interested neighbors do not know these basic facts and do not know where to find them.Is there any reason -- any technical objection - why a ballot could not be organized for a whole neighborhood project, rather than just for one street? If there is, could we have parallel ballots for each segment of a neighborhood project, with agreement that no council vote will be taken on any until balloting for all is completed?Is there any reason why a comprehensive neighborhood plan -- one that includes 3rd Street traffic calming and similar measures for Howe and 4th -- could not be advanced? We cannot see the objection to this, which seems to be in the best traditions of a comprehensive, all-neighborhood approach of precisely the kind that surely we all want.

Regards,

Rachel Guglielmo & Tim Waters

Reply

Debora Frazier

8/2/2010 07:50:30 am

We appreciate the city's attendance at tonight's meeting. We are unable to be there at this juncture but want to add our support to this process. I had made my comments known earlier on the list. I look forward to hearing from Justin and our neighborhood the feedback on this conversation.

Best,Debora Frazier

Reply

Robert Hoole

8/3/2010 10:54:01 pm

I was unable to attend the Monday meeting. I would like to get a summary of what was discussed. I know there is a risk of email fatigue but if anyone wants to fill me in on what transpired I can be contacted directly at roberthoole@hotmail.com

Robert Hoole338 S. Fairview St.

Reply

Ruth Cord

12/15/2010 12:20:44 am

I OBJECT VEHEMENTLY to the proposed placement of the traffic calming cushion in the 800 block of W. Third. Our home is located at 814 W. Third, in the alley that runs North/South next to 812 W. Third. There is a steep incline that has to be negotiated plus the turn onto West Third street; when it is icy and snowy (& especially after the snow plows have pushed large amts. of snow/ice into that area and it has frozen before it has been cleared), it is nearly impossible to get out of the alley onto W. Third. It is further complicated when cars are parked on the North Side of West Third near that alley exit. Sometimes the alley is blocked and it is impossible to use the southern exit onto 4th Street. If the cushion could be placed further west of 812, it would be most helpful, and not present such a problem.